Killarney, stop the hysterical victim-playing, you constantly attack me and others. You're mostly a rather ineffective troll.

I offered you an apology, but you lack the grace and good manners to accept. No worries, I withdraw it.

Nitwit.

Emperor Julian

Agree with all your points. Specifically, referendums are of democratic use only when they vote according to what is wanted by the powers that be. Poor old WA has had no less than four daylight saving referendums to effect the vote that Perth-Sydney boardrooms want.

No doubt, there will be more DS referendums until the WA public 'gets it right'.

In 2008, an Irish referendum rejected the Lisbon Treaty, which would have effectively turned over Irish national sovereignty to Brussels.

No matter. The people were orderd back to the polls in 2009 to supply the vote that Brussels wanted. This was backed up by a massive Irish media blitz based on fear and intimidation that God would strike Ireland dead if they persisted with this silly belief that the Irish people should control their own destiny.

Brussels won.

I'm not sure why the Western powers that be (i.e. the US-NATO) are so gung-ho to enforce same-sex marriage at this point in time. I can't help but assume it's mainly for distraction purposes.

Craig

Oh, dear. The bully's lament: 'Stop being a victim'.

No problem, Craig. I'll stop 'being a victim' when I stop being victimised

Killarney, the bully around this site is you and like all bullies, as soon as you are confronted you weakly claim victim status.

You are not worth respect and you are most assuredly not any kind of victim. You're just a weak-principled pissant troll who doesn't have enough backbone to even use your real name when spewing your vitriol.

Feminist? Don't make me laugh: you're simply a noisome heckler.

California is a state of about 38 million people – much bigger than Australia or Ireland – and on a state level it is democratic, unlike Australia. There are set procedures for any significant-enough number to call a referendum on whatever issue they choose, and the results are binding. The Californians could be of great assistance to Australia in designing appropriate protocols for binding citizen-initiated referenda (BCIR).

Before we drown from the pissing contests, I’d like to pass on what a rellie has submitted to the The West Australian in response to a couple of homophobes recoiling in horror over the Irish people’s effrontery. I’ll leave out the names until the editors have decided whether to print it.

“[... and ...] (Letters 28/05/15) are worried that same-sex marriage will open the door to a breakdown of law and order, financial losses, polygamy, child marriage and incest. These penetrating predictions, however, just don’t go far enough! Should same-sex marriage be introduced into this country I foresee a dramatic decline in our weather – including droughts, floods, plagues of blood-sucking frogs and plagues of new-age vacuum cleaner salesmen; not to mention a deterioration in the quality of breakfast cereal. There’ll be an increasing number of asylum seekers too, as thousands upon thousands of frustrated gay refugees, all gaily dressed in bridal gowns and waving pink fluffy handbags, arrive upon our shores.”

I fear he forgot to mention the direst result of all – re-election of an Abbott-Hockey government.

Leo Lane,

<<There is evidence of you undergoing an addle-brained state there,...>>

How do you figure that? All I said is that the current definition of marriage, that being the union between a man and a woman only, is unquestionable. That does not contradict any of the questions that you’re desperately trying to avoid answering. You, on the other hand, are confusing two concepts: (i) the definition of marriage (according to our legislation), and (ii) what marriage can and cannot intrinsically be.

<<...I will ask you...where there is any controversy about the meaning of the term “marriage”.>>

There is no confusion as to the definition of the term “marriage”. No-one in this country is of the mistaken belief that two people of the same sex are able to get married. As to whether or not two people of the same sex can be considered married (what you may be - either sneakily or inarticulately - saying when you use the word “meaning”)? Yes, there is a controversy over this and the evidence for it is in this thread and also currently in the federal parliament.

<<Controversy about the institution of marriage itself is irrelevant.>>

Clear as mud, as usual. I trust the above has sufficiently answered your question. I await your next attempt as obfuscation.

<<I note the ignorant and baseless assertion that I am a "denier”>>

I figured you were trying to divert the discussion to your favourite topic. Here’s why you’re a denier… http://www.seccca.org.au/2010/05/18/state-of-denial-a-new-scientist-article-to-distinguish-between-sceptics-and-deniers

<<Refer me to the science which shows any measurable effect on climate by human emissions.>>

Here’s a couple of hundred thousand for you to sift through… http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=evidence+for+anthropogenic+climate+change

I asked Simmo about the IPCC and ‘e doesn’t know nuffin’ about ‘em. Neither does Robbo. Thommo just shrugs ‘is shoulders when I ask ‘im why this global warmin’ stuff is all crap. Never was good wiff words, that boy. One fing’s for sure, tho: he ain’t gonna let some know-it-all poindexter take ‘is fourby off ‘im. Wouldn’t be caught dead in no pansy electric fourby either, ‘e wouldn't. A man's fourby needs a bit o' grunt.